No "under-withholding penalty" per IRPAC recommendation?

Last month, one of those do-gooder committees (IRPAC) released its report. It's not pretty--good thing Spell Czech didn't get to it first! Actually, I have both a bouquet and some brickbats: the bouquet is, I appreciate that there are professionals who devote their time and expertise to this committee. I don't know if they are reimbursed for travel to D.C. or other committee activities, but if not, even more praise to them.

Now, the brickbats:

Among recommendations included is one to waive "under-withholding penalties" [sic].

"IRPAC recommends that the IRS waive penalties for taxpayer under-withholding for tax year 2018." [p. 9]
"IRPAC recommends that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) waive penalties for taxpayer under-withholding for tax year 2019." [p. 24]

"Despite the IRS’s efforts to inform taxpayers to check their withholding and encourage the use of the “calculator” on the IRS website, usage of the “calculator” through completion has been minimal because of the complexity (per IRS comments). IRPAC feels that a onetime waiver of underwithholding penalties for taxpayers is warranted."

First, how embarrassing for the profession that they don't use the correct technical term for the underpayment of estimated tax penalty (or "addition to tax", if you will), a.k.a. Form 2210.[*] Second, which year is it, 2018 or 2019?

Third, isn't this a little far afield for a recommendation from a committee whose scope is information reporting? What does the underpayment of estimated tax penalty (late payment interest charge) have to do with information reporting?

What about the millions of taxpayers who will manage to pay as they go sufficiently during the year? Why should they subsidize those who couldn't be bothered to make even the simplest check? Isn't this a little self-serving for the tax profession, since obviously these folks (meaning us) don't want to have to spend time explaining to the clients next spring how tax simplification really wasn't, and how the extra take home pay they saw wasn't really a tax cut?

They also recommended a bunch of other things, such as making the W-2 Box 12 Code DD reporting optional, and resurrecting Form 1099-NEC to replace Form 1099-MISC Box 7 (Non-Employee Compensation).

https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/i ... rpac-facts

[*] I've also seen "Failure to pay proper estimated tax" and simply "Underpayment penalty".

Bored by the unending coverage of the "snow storm," I started to read the "Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee's ["IRPAC's] "Comments To The IRS Oversight Board" from January of 2002. But I stopped reading when the author used the word "effected" where he should have written "affected." After that, I just couldn't get into it....

What was the effect on you? Please describe your affect at the moment you decided to quit.

The article impacted me greatly, as well.

I don't know if they are reimbursed for travel to D.C. or other committee activities, but if not, even more praise to them.

"IRPAC members meet in Washington, DC approximately five times a year, each session lasting two days. Members are not paid for their services. However, travel expenses for working sessions, public meetings and orientation sessions, such as airfare, per diem, and transportation to and from airports, train stations, etc., are reimbursed within prescribed federal travel limitations."